RE: a be-safe thread for bitcoin: There are already a couple "be safe" threads stickied in the Bitcoin Discussion forum (e.g. the beware of trojan wallet stealers thread, the newbies article that links to keep-your-wallet-safe, etc).

Writing a more general one is not a bad idea; if I knew last November all the craziness that would happen this year I would have written one back then (but back then nobody was spending tens of thousands of dollars speculating on bitcoin).

RE: putting my employer in my forum signature: what do other people think? Would that be unfair advertising for TruCoin or good full disclosure?

If it drives more business to TruCoin then that will eventually, hopefully, mean more money in my pocket, so if it is up to me heck yeah I'll mention TruCoin in my signature!

How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?

I trust Gavin. He has always been upfront about things, such as the fact that he is working for has visited the CIA. Honestly, as long as the source remains open, what's the problem? Mt Gox and the other exchanges can always hire someone to write code for the main Bitcoin client, too. Maybe what's needed is a committee to approve changes to the source. I hate to see bureaucracy introduced, but in the interest of impartiality and safety, perhaps that's what's needed at this point. I also think it's fine for him to mention his TruCoin affiliation in his sig.

"A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history." --Gandhi

You guys worry too much, all of you. A large number of core GNU/Linux developers worked at IBM. That favored IBM, but it also favored Linux. They didn't hide their affiliations, nor did they declare them to every Linux user. This doesn't qualify as a conflict of interests.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

I don't see this as a negative thing at all. Quite the opposite, it's a very positive development. A lot of the most popular open source projects have or had at some point the backing of one or more companies. Firefox, Chromium, WebKit, Linux, Wine, VirtualBox, Blender, Open Office, etc. Open source is great but the bad thing about it is that somehow people completely lost respect for the job of "software developer". It seems like they don't feel software developers are entitled to receive money for working which is absurd. Gavin now having a commercial interest in Bitcoin means he is much less likely to stop developing Bitcoin at some point due to a loss of interest and it also means he can spend more time on it. And it's in TruCoin's best interest to help Bitcoin succeed. There is of course a risk but the way Bitcoin works makes this risk rather minimal. If some or all of the developers of the Bitcoin client at some point decide to do something that the majority (51%) of the community doesn't like, people will just use a fork or a different client and the current developers would loose control over Bitcoin which solves the problem.

I don't see this as a negative thing at all. Quite the opposite, it's a very positive development. A lot of the most popular open source projects have or had at some point the backing of one or more companies. Firefox, Chromium, WebKit, Linux, Wine, VirtualBox, Blender, Open Office, etc. Open source is great but the bad thing about it is that somehow people completely lost respect for the job of "software developer". It seems like they don't feel software developers are entitled to receive money for working which is absurd. Gavin now having a commercial interest in Bitcoin means he is much less likely to stop developing Bitcoin at some point due to a loss of interest and it also means he can spend more time on it. And it's in TruCoin's best interest to help Bitcoin succeed. There is of course a risk but the way Bitcoin works makes this risk rather minimal. If some or all of the developers of the Bitcoin client at some point decide to do something that the majority (51%) of the community doesn't like, people will just use a fork or a different client and the current developers would loose control over Bitcoin which solves the problem.

+1 I can't see the negative side at all. You can work at Ford and drive a Mercedes and appreciate the value of both. Put TruCoin in your sig line.

++1

More the merrier in the ecosystem. I just checked out Bitcoin deals advertisement... over a million products including digicam? wow, I can't wait.

I love it, bitcoin core devs are working on a bitcoin bank! Glad bitcoin is so decentralized!

Any time you don't like Gaven & Co.'s work, you can write your own client. You can start from where they left off, or you can write your own from scratch!Nobody is forcing you to use free and open software in ways you don't like.

Some of y'all are fuq'n crazy, confict of intrest, yay right. Where Gavin works is none of you concern. And if it is, you have no right to know what Gavin does with his time. What, are you some fascist possing as a free market anarcist? Those of you who have tarnished Gavin's reputation should be ashamed of your selfs. Go ahead, push Gavin. Show him that his work is not appreciated. Then he leaves the bitcoin community because of its politics. Where would that leave bitcoin with no lead developer with the knowledge level that Gavin has? One thing would be for sure, development would slow.

Think about it. If Gavin's taste sours to bitcoin and sweetens to trucoin then where do you think he will spend his time developing? Where would you? If it were me, I would slow my development of bitcoin and see who steps up as the next possible lead developer. If the community pushed hard enough I would just stop developing. Why work for free and get treated like shit when you can work for pay and get treated as if you are appreciated?

If people follow Gavin to trucoin good for them. But this would be a big signal for those with a thinking mind. It would signal that the 'Xcoin' phenomenon is in part based on the talent behind the dominate system. Gavin sees this and so does trucoin and the thinkers in the bitcoin community. This leads to the possible conculsion that Gavin starts his own 'Xcoin'.

The community as a whole has made more money trading btc than Gavin has. It was much of his work that has lead to where bitcoin is today. From development to public speaking. I dont know about you but I hate public speaking. Gavin has given magnitudes more to the bitcoin community than the community has to Gavin. And now that Gavin asks from the community to glance at some text, they are so greedy they make up some unknown to now perceived community infraction to tarnish and start an accusatory witch hunt.

There is to be one set of rules and it is applied to all members of the bitcoin community in the same way. If these rules are not written down anywhere and then are used to tarnish a member, let alone senior member, then that is unjust. Dare I say fascist? The messure of an issue should not have some arbitrary line moved each time an issue occures. Without written community rules no one can have merits accusing another of an infraction against the community. Attempting to do so shows that one is more interested in control than the proclaimed fairness.

Gavin has the right to put what ever he likes in his signature. I for one think that there are only two people in the bitcoin community that have earned the right to wisely choose their signature and Gavin is one of those people. There should not be a separate standard for developers that restricts them. The developers have earned the right if anything, to have less restrictions. To tell developers that we trust your decisions enough to make a system that makes us money but we dont trust your decision for a forum signature is offensive. The affect will be to stifle developer talent. Lets face it, without talented developers bitcoin will wither on the vine.

Lets look the loudest voices against Gavin. Those are users (community leaches?) that are so greedy that just the appearance of the name of another 'Xcoin' sends them into self preservation and fuq the world as long as they 'get theirs'. Contrast that to the developer who spends 100s if not 1000s of hours developing and in some cases community development and out reach.

Gavin, you have the moral duty to rectify this unjust act portrayed upon you, put back the signature containing trucoin. Doing so would show your leadership and prevent a precedent from occuring. If the backlash from the community is harsh, then step back from your volunteer work on bitcoin for a 6-8 months and let the community cool off. It will give those that decent a chance to step up and show that their not just 'hot air'(flatulence).

Those that have the power to correct this unjust tarnishment of Gavin's reputation should show their leadership. Let's not forget precedent was set when this forum allowed conversation of other 'Xcoins' to occure.

Any time you don't like Gaven & Co.'s work, you can write your own client. You can start from where they left off, or you can write your own from scratch!Nobody is forcing you to use free and open software in ways you don't like.

I predict that for Bitcoin in the USA (and other countries with adversarial legal system) this is going to be decided by the courts. All it takes is some not-bug-but-feature change in the block acceptance algorithm and somebody with enough bitcoin on the orphaned side of the chain that will get sufficiently pissed off.

On one hand, sure it's open source.On the other hand, it's a very few people that control the client and hence blockchain.That blockchain is worth ~$41,000,000 at the moment.

Bitcoin (and clones) is far from decentralized, that has been proven quite nicely in the alternative cryptographies forum lately. He (or they) who control the client wields a tremendous amount of power over the chain.

On one hand, sure it's open source.On the other hand, it's a very few people that control the client and hence blockchain.That blockchain is worth ~$41,000,000 at the moment.

Bitcoin (and clones) is far from decentralized, that has been proven quite nicely in the alternative cryptographies forum lately. He (or they) who control the client wields a tremendous amount of power over the chain.

Nobody controls the client, anyone with skills can join the dev team and contribute.